[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <16063366.hqKB8js4d5@avalon>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 16:44:53 +0300
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To: Vaishali Thakkar <vthakkar1994@...il.com>
Cc: airlied@...ux.ie, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: rcar-du: Use drm_dev_put
Hi Vaishali,
On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 16:42:59 EEST Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 15:10:36 EEST Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
> >> As specified in drm_drv.c, drm_dev_unref is a compatibility alias
> >> for drm_dev_put and shouldn't be used in new code. So, use
> >> drm_dev_put instead.
> >
> > This looks good to me. However, how about taking it one step further and
> > mass- patching all drivers to use drm_dev_put() ? We could then remove
> > drm_dev_unref() completely.
>
> Sure thing! Do you want me to fold this patch in that patchset or will you
> be fine with applying this separately?
I don't think we should split the change in one patch per driver, so if you
send a single patch (to be applied through drm-misc) I think it would make
sense to fold this change in.
> >> Signed-off-by: Vaishali Thakkar <vthakkar1994@...il.com>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_drv.c | 2 +-
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_drv.c
> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_drv.c index 05745e86d73e..418a80e6b2f4
> >> 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_drv.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_drv.c
> >> @@ -378,7 +378,7 @@ static int rcar_du_remove(struct platform_device
> >> *pdev)
> >> drm_kms_helper_poll_fini(ddev);
> >> drm_mode_config_cleanup(ddev);
> >>
> >> - drm_dev_unref(ddev);
> >> + drm_dev_put(ddev);
> >> return 0;
> >> }
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
Powered by blists - more mailing lists